April arguments: Same-sex marriage cases set for April 28
on Mar 5, 2015 at 11:36 am
The Supreme Court on Thursday released the calendar of oral arguments for the final sitting of the Term, beginning April 20, and listing the four cases on same-sex marriage for hearing on Tuesday, April 28.
The calendar is thin, with only a single argument each day except on April 29, when there are two arguments.
The day-by-day schedule, with a brief summary of the question in each case, follows the jump.
Monday, April 20:
Johnson v. United States — Possession of a sawed-off shotgun as a violent felony, leading to a longer prison term as a career criminal. This case was heard on November 5 but is being reargued on a new question about potential vagueness of a part of the Armed Career Criminal Act.
Tuesday, April 21:
McFadden v. United States — A federal prosecutor’s duty to prove that a suspect knew that a substance was an illegal substitute for a banned drug.
Wednesday, April 22:
Horne v. U.S. Department of Agriculture — The federal government’s duty to pay raisin growers for an order requiring removal of part of a year’s crop from the market to stabilize prices.
Monday, April 27:
Kingsley v. Hendrickson — The proof needed to show police use of excessive force toward a detained person awaiting trial.
Tuesday, April 28:
Obergefell v. Hodges and three other cases — The constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage and state refusals to recognize existing same-sex marriages. The cases are consolidated for two-and-a-half hours of argument.
Wednesday, April 29:
Glossip v. Gross — The constitutionality under the Eighth Amendment of using a sedative as the first drug in a death penalty protocol. (The executions of the three Oklahoma inmates have been stayed.)
Mata v. Holder — The authority of a federal appeals court to extend the time to seek a reopening of an immigration case because of an ineffective attorney.
[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in McFadden. However, the author of this post is not affiliated with the firm.]
